4 ms·

> It's not fair to replace a local worker with a foreign worker because they're cheaper. Why not? I'd argue that it is more unfair that an American worker gets

by Klockan 10y ago

> It's not fair to replace a local worker with a foreign worker because they're cheaper. Why not? I'd argue that it is more unfair that an American worker gets paid many times more than an Indian worker even when they do exactly the same job. Letting those Indian workers come to America and compete on more equal terms is among the fairest things you can do.

anjc 10y ago
Fair to who?
- keerthiko 10y ago
  That's a perverse question. The word "fairness" implies to all parties involved, typically by uplifting whoever would be disadvantaged in the system pre-fairness-implementation. You probably meant "advantageous to who?" and the answer to that is obviously the employer, and to a lesser extent the migrant worker. Capitalism is about favoring businesses (employers) in general, hoping for trickle-down benefits to individual consumers, so allowing hiring immigrant workers for lower wage seems consistent with capitalist principles.
  - anjc 10y ago
    Ok so then you feel that it's possible that it may increase net-fairness, but that it could be be unfair to some parties? So with regards to the indictment described in the OP, it would be very clearly unfair if indigenous workers were displaced due to the illegal availability of cheaper non-national workers, right? I don't see how it's a perverse question.
    - aianus 10y ago
      Imagine some guy was hired at $50/h to flip burgers and a few years down the line he gets fired in favor of a cheaper worker. Which part was unfair? The part where he was making $50/h flipping burgers or the termination? Edit: what if the reason he was making $50/h was because he lobbied his government to restrict burger flipping work authorization to people born within 2km of his home and he was the only one qualified?
      - anjc 10y ago
        The analogous part that's unfair would be the illegal importation of cheaper labour from emerging economies who will flip burgers for a wage that doesn't allow for an acceptable standard of living (meaning that they can only afford rent if they share bedrooms with strangers and so on). The reason for increased issuances of visas is corporate lobbying too, and most American workers have very little protection in terms of rights and lobbying, so your comparison is flipped around to describe the opposite of reality.
    - toast0 10y ago
      > Ok so then you feel that it's possible that it may increase net-fairness, but that it could be be unfair to some parties? It's more fair to all parties, if fairness means equal pay for equal work. It was never fair for the US worker that got paid 3x the salary for doing the job in the US instead of overseas. Being paid a more fair wage doesn't mean the US worker will be happier (in fact, the opposite is likely).
      - anjc 10y ago
        > It was never fair for the US worker that got paid 3x the salary for doing the job in the US instead of overseas ?! By this argument it's unfair that Indian workers get paid more in the US than they do in India, as this is unfair to people who do the job in India for less?
        toast0 10y ago
        Isn't the basic tenet of fair wages equal pay for equal work? If the work is essentially the same in all locations, it's unfair that the wages aren't the same everywhere. Certainly, the work may not be the same everywhere, and not all workers are providing the same level of work etc. If the worker in India provides the same value to the company as the worker in the US, how is it fair that they are paid differently? There's also a massive difference in cost of living, and maybe it's fair to pay someone more because the business chooses to hold offices in an expensive place; OTOH, maybe it's more fair to pay everyone the same, and close offices in HCOL areas because you can't attract employees at a fair wage.
        anjc 10y ago
        Even if you could magically make everywhere have the same cost of living and have the same pool of talent, you're then left with a situation whereby it's cheaper to operate companies in some countries due to proximity of natural resources (production of steel-based products in China, for example, isn't just cheaper because workers are willing to work for less). You're never going to get equal pay for equal work on a global scale.
    - baddox 10y ago
      "Fair" doesn't mean "enjoyable." The most obvious example would be a punishment for a crime.
    - keerthiko 10y ago
      I agree with you since you use the qualifier "illegal". By intentional design, most things that are illegal are unfair (if designed well, which the h1b program is far from). However I feel your sentiment is directed towards "legal via loophole" immigration as well, which is not illegal. It would be disadvantageous to the displaced indigenous worker if they were unwilling/unable to compete with the migrant worker (including cost-value proposition to employers via wage level), but fair, if the migrant worker legally arrived. While the indicted in this article did visa fraud, the majority of migrant tech workers are brought totally above board although at significantly lower wages.

by Klockan 10y ago

anjc 10y ago

Fair to who?

keerthiko 10y ago
That's a perverse question. The word "fairness" implies to all parties involved, typically by uplifting whoever would be disadvantaged in the system pre-fairness-implementation. You probably meant "advantageous to who?" and the answer to that is obviously the employer, and to a lesser extent the migrant worker. Capitalism is about favoring businesses (employers) in general, hoping for trickle-down benefits to individual consumers, so allowing hiring immigrant workers for lower wage seems consistent with capitalist principles.
- anjc 10y ago
  Ok so then you feel that it's possible that it may increase net-fairness, but that it could be be unfair to some parties? So with regards to the indictment described in the OP, it would be very clearly unfair if indigenous workers were displaced due to the illegal availability of cheaper non-national workers, right? I don't see how it's a perverse question.
  - aianus 10y ago
    Imagine some guy was hired at $50/h to flip burgers and a few years down the line he gets fired in favor of a cheaper worker. Which part was unfair? The part where he was making $50/h flipping burgers or the termination? Edit: what if the reason he was making $50/h was because he lobbied his government to restrict burger flipping work authorization to people born within 2km of his home and he was the only one qualified?
    - anjc 10y ago
      The analogous part that's unfair would be the illegal importation of cheaper labour from emerging economies who will flip burgers for a wage that doesn't allow for an acceptable standard of living (meaning that they can only afford rent if they share bedrooms with strangers and so on). The reason for increased issuances of visas is corporate lobbying too, and most American workers have very little protection in terms of rights and lobbying, so your comparison is flipped around to describe the opposite of reality.
  - toast0 10y ago
    > Ok so then you feel that it's possible that it may increase net-fairness, but that it could be be unfair to some parties? It's more fair to all parties, if fairness means equal pay for equal work. It was never fair for the US worker that got paid 3x the salary for doing the job in the US instead of overseas. Being paid a more fair wage doesn't mean the US worker will be happier (in fact, the opposite is likely).
    - anjc 10y ago
      > It was never fair for the US worker that got paid 3x the salary for doing the job in the US instead of overseas ?! By this argument it's unfair that Indian workers get paid more in the US than they do in India, as this is unfair to people who do the job in India for less?
      - toast0 10y ago
        Isn't the basic tenet of fair wages equal pay for equal work? If the work is essentially the same in all locations, it's unfair that the wages aren't the same everywhere. Certainly, the work may not be the same everywhere, and not all workers are providing the same level of work etc. If the worker in India provides the same value to the company as the worker in the US, how is it fair that they are paid differently? There's also a massive difference in cost of living, and maybe it's fair to pay someone more because the business chooses to hold offices in an expensive place; OTOH, maybe it's more fair to pay everyone the same, and close offices in HCOL areas because you can't attract employees at a fair wage.
        anjc 10y ago
        Even if you could magically make everywhere have the same cost of living and have the same pool of talent, you're then left with a situation whereby it's cheaper to operate companies in some countries due to proximity of natural resources (production of steel-based products in China, for example, isn't just cheaper because workers are willing to work for less). You're never going to get equal pay for equal work on a global scale.
  - baddox 10y ago
    "Fair" doesn't mean "enjoyable." The most obvious example would be a punishment for a crime.
  - keerthiko 10y ago
    I agree with you since you use the qualifier "illegal". By intentional design, most things that are illegal are unfair (if designed well, which the h1b program is far from). However I feel your sentiment is directed towards "legal via loophole" immigration as well, which is not illegal. It would be disadvantageous to the displaced indigenous worker if they were unwilling/unable to compete with the migrant worker (including cost-value proposition to employers via wage level), but fair, if the migrant worker legally arrived. While the indicted in this article did visa fraud, the majority of migrant tech workers are brought totally above board although at significantly lower wages.